Can we reword the code of laws?

[Ninot]

There has been some violent debating on rather or not ammendments must always be simple additions to the end of the code of laws, or if they can actually replace something in the code of laws.

If we were to reword something in the code of laws, that would involve actually replacing what is already there, and copying in the new passage in its place.

If we were to ammend to the code of laws as is the definition of that word, then nothing may be deleted from the code of laws. Instead, ammendments would go at the bottom, and state what they are changing.

So, the poll asks "Can we reword the code of laws"? (as is defined in the second paragraph of this post)

1: yes
2: no

it needs a 2/3'rds decision to become official. So if it finishes anywhere between 66% and 50%, the vote can't apply to anything.

[Jon Shafer]

Nein.

[UnOrthOdOx]

edit: I had the wrong link here, use Timeline's.

[Timeline]

I suggest you also go here.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Oh, and I also vote 'no' for reasons stated in the 'violent' debate.

[Timeline]

And I vote 'yes' for reasons stated in the 'violent' debate.

[GoodFella]

No
Nein
Nyet
Hmm...I've exhausted my limited knowledge of how to say "no" in different languages.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by GoodFella
No
Nein
Nyet
Hmm...I've exhausted my limited knowledge of how to say "no" in different languages.

how about non? thats two languages aint it?

[Timeline]

Ninot: Thanks for editing your post to make it more neutral, but I'm afraid you have still failed to eliminate all bias. (hard I know)

If we were to ammend to the code of laws as is the definition of that word,

I invite you, go look up the word in a dictionary. You will actually find it means alteration, among other things.

then nothing may be deleted from the code of laws.

Far from it! We will always keep records of the Constitution and never forget what it once was. Our Historians will no doubt joyfully recite how things have changed, and I know I myself always keep records of the CoL after every change.

The point is, for new ones coming here and trying to learn our laws, it would be much simpler and far more preferable to keep things simple as basic as possible. After all, our people voted for a limited constitution, not a real-life like one where you have to be a lawyer to figure it out!

Right now, it would take someone 30 minutes scrolling up and down to put together all the changes and get an understanding of our law. Just imagine when we have five amendments, or ten. Ouch, what a waste of time when it could all be put together simple and easy to understand.

[notyoueither]

Absofreakinlutely NOT.

New word, do I win a prize?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Although I see no problem with small edits to parts of the Constitution, I guess it could work with just an amendment instead.

/me sees the Constitution reaching biblical size proportions in the not-too-distant future.

[wervdon]

The only way I could see that being possible is if we pass an ammendment which basically says our new constitution is this, but I seriously doubt we ever need a 2nd or 3rd republic so to speak

Otherwise, short of a newly ratified constitution, the old one should stay as is.

EDIT: I could also see us doing it between demo games. But that is also a long way off.

[Luk]

As European I vote yes. The structure of Apolytonia Code of Laws is structure of American Constitution which is an old structure and very not comfortable. I urge all European and non-American people to vote yes. It can not be that newbie will read our constitution and he will have a dificiculties to find the correct meaning of it. Almost all countries uses the system of reword, because it is simply newer and better.

[Timeline]

^

He is soo right on this one.

[jdjdjd]

With the US Cconstitution, when an Amendment is added that contradicts an old portion, the new amendment supercedes the old, yet the old remains in the doc for historical purposes. The new amendment would have language indicating it over rides